Just as other sites like StackExchange do, I'd love for people to be able to view revision history of all my posts and comments.

I have 18 years of history on Reddit. I'm constantly getting accused of using AI or being a bot because I tend to write long comments, that are well-written, and properly organized and formatted. LLMs likely learned to write from people like me.

But now, people tend to dismiss my contributions out of hand just because they assume it's non-human content. If you could see my history and revision process (I often go back and update / correct old comments), it would give my comments more legitimacy.

I also sometimes run across errors in old comments, and I want to update / correct them, but now I hesitate to do so: a comment from 5 years ago is inarguably not AI. But if I edit it now after the "cut-off", people can still accuse it of being AI-generated. A revision-history with timestamps would put any such charges to rest.

Does Reddit even keep a record of comment revisions? I certainly hope so.

I'm testing a new MacOS Configuration Policy using Declarative Device Management to control an app's "Accessibility" permission, as it seems that the previous Accessibility control in the Settings Catalog, in Privacy → Privacy Preferences Policy Control (often abbreviated as PPPC) has been deprecated, and will not work in new versions of MacOS going forward.

Because this setting is so new, I haven't been able to find any guides with examples online.

I'm trying to set up a test for a user using the app "BetterDisplay Pro", which requires "Accessibility" permissions to function.

I'm trying to follow the instructions in Intune itself, but I'm not 100% sure I'm formatting it correctly.

Under Devices → MacOS Devices → Manage Devices → Configuration, I am creating a new Policy, with a Setting Catalog Profile Type.

Under Configuration Settings → Declarative Device Management → App Settings → Privacy → Permission Defaults,

I have set the following settings:

Accessibility : Allow
Organization Justification : [Because it's required]
Permission Defaults : "pro.betterdisplay.BetterDisplay {anchor apple generic and identifier "pro.betterdisplay.BetterDisplay" and (certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.9] /* exists */ or certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = "299YSU96J7")}"

In that complicated Permission Defaults field, I'm told by the Intune help text that the data should be in the format:

"Bundle-ID {Designated Requirement}"

I've sourced the information for Bundle-ID from the CFBundleIdentifier Key in the app's Info.plist file in the Package Contents of , and I've sourced the {Designated Requirement} from the output of the Terminal command codesign --display -r - /Applications/BetterDisplay.app, which returns:

>Executable=/Applications/BetterDisplay.app/Contents/MacOS/BetterDisplay
>designated => anchor apple generic and identifier "pro.betterdisplay.BetterDisplay" and (certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.9] /* exists */ or certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = "299YSU96J7")

Is my understanding, approach, and formatting correct?

I'm not sure if the Permission Defaults field should have the double quotes or if the double quotes are just to clarify the Microsoft help text, but I've tried both ways and have achieved the same results.

If I view the Report for the Configuration in Intune, I get the following:

Succeeded: 0
Error: 0
Conflict: 0
N/A: 0
In Progress: 0

The one user in the Assigned group shows:

Check-in status: Unknown

Meanwhile, I also created a DDM policy for MacOS updates around the samr time for the same user, and it applied almost immediately, and I see it has "Succeeded".

It's also been more than 72 hours since I first created the policy.

I'm testing a new MacOS Configuration Policy using Declarative Device Management to control an app's "Accessibility" permission, as it seems that the previous Accessibility control in the Settings Catalog, in Privacy → Privacy Preferences Policy Control (often abbreviated as PPPC) has been deprecated, and will not work in new versions of MacOS going forward.

Because this setting is so new, I haven't been able to find any guides with examples online.

I'm trying to set up a test for a user using the app "BetterDisplay Pro", which requires "Accessibility" permissions to function.

I'm trying to follow the instructions in Intune itself, but I'm not 100% sure I'm formatting it correctly.

Under Devices → MacOS Devices → Manage Devices → Configuration, I am creating a new Policy, with a Setting Catalog Profile Type.

Under Configuration Settings → Declarative Device Management → App Settings → Privacy → Permission Defaults,

I have set the following settings:

Accessibility : Allow
Organization Justification : [Because it's required]
Permission Defaults : "pro.betterdisplay.BetterDisplay {anchor apple generic and identifier "pro.betterdisplay.BetterDisplay" and (certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.9] /* exists */ or certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = "299YSU96J7")}"

In that complicated Permission Defaults field, I'm told by the Intune help text that the data should be in the format:

"Bundle-ID {Designated Requirement}"

I've sourced the information for Bundle-ID from the CFBundleIdentifier Key in the app's Info.plist file in the Package Contents of , and I've sourced the {Designated Requirement} from the output of the Terminal command codesign --display -r - /Applications/BetterDisplay.app, which returns:

>Executable=/Applications/BetterDisplay.app/Contents/MacOS/BetterDisplay
>designated => anchor apple generic and identifier "pro.betterdisplay.BetterDisplay" and (certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.9] /* exists */ or certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = "299YSU96J7")

Is my understanding, approach, and formatting correct?

• The laptop is running the latest BIOS from Dell's website, from March 2026.
• I've reset the BIOS to "Factory Defaults".
• I've confirmed option in BIOS to Boot from USB is active.
• I've double-checked in Windows that the SecureBoot 2023 Certificates are installed.
• The USB-C drive appears in BIOS under the "Boot Configuration" section and the boot priority menus and also in the F12 Boot Menu, so there is no problem with it being correctly detected by the laptop.
• If I try to boot from the USB-C drive with SecureBoot on, I receive the following error message:
  >Operating System Loader has no signature. Incompatible with SecureBoot. All bootable devices failed Secure Boot verification.
• If I try to turn SecureBoot off and boot from the USB-C drive, I receive the following error message:
  >No bootable devices found.
• I've tried booting from all three USB-C ports on the laptop.
• The same USB-C drive boots to the Windows installation on other computers with SecureBoot - I've used it on Dells, Lenovos, HP, and Acer machines with no problem.

Any ideas how I can boot from this USB-C drive in order to install Windows?

I'm testing KeeShare with just two users:

• One user is using Windows and one is using MacOS.
• Each user has their own personal KDBX in their OneDrive folder, and there is a third "shared" KBDX on a Network Shared folder.
• Each user is set to Synchronize with the third "shared" KBDX.
• I've tested adding and editing entries from either user's personal KDBX, and the additions / edits do synchronize to the other user's KBDX.
• However, when I tested deletions, these did not synchronize to the other user's KBDX.

Is this expected behavior?

Eventually this entire system needs to be torn down and rebuilt, but I need a "temporary" solution that will work for now until that is done.

---

Existing Setup:

• Server: Windows Server 2019

  • It is not a DC, because no on-premises AD is being used.
    It's just a glorified application and file server.
  • Running an ancient accounting program.
  • Shared Folders, which must be Mapped as Network Drives on client machines running Windows.
  • Users defined locally in Windows Server with permission to access Shared Folder.

• Client Machines: Windows 11 Pro

  • Managed by InTune
  • Login via Entra credentials.
  • Manually mapping a Network Drive for each User to the Server, using their local User defined on the Server.

---

I'd love to be able to Map the Network Drive using each user's Entra credentials, but to do this, the Windows Server would have to be aware of the Entra Users.

I know there is no great way to synchronize users from Entra back to an on-premises AD DC, but that's not really what I need. I just need to be able to authenticate Shared Folder access with Entra credentials.

Could the Windows Server act as a "pass-through" where it hands off authentication to an LDAP server?

I've already set up the AzureAD-LDAP-Wrapper on my local Synology to allow for Entra-based authentication of the Synology's Shared Folders, and it's working well.

Is there any way I could point the Windows Server to that same LDAP Wrapper, and then set permissions for the Shared Folders on the Windows Server based on those LDAP users?

I'm thinking maybe this is what I need?

• Configure AD FS to authenticate users stored in LDAP directories in Windows Server 2016 or later

Does anyone have any experience trying to do something this stupid?

Clarifications:

• This is not about sharing a poster with a specific known person.
• This is not about whether specific posters can be interpreted as spoilers by specific people. This is about whether the act of re-sharing already public posters is considered bad social etiquette.

Assumptions

• Assume it's any random public or social event: not necessarily one that has anything to do with the movie, nor where anyone would necessarily expect to see movie posters.
• Assume it's in "mixed" company, including strangers.
• Assume it's an upcoming release, so no one has seen the actual movie yet.
• Assume it's one of the broadly-released, "official" movie posters.
  (I.e. You would see this poster at most, but not necessarily every, movie theater, or in the top results for any Google search of the movie title.)

Would displaying the official movie poster of an upcoming release be considered poor spoiler etiquette?

^(If your instinctive answer is "it depends", assume this is a general question of general etiquette.)
^(If it's acceptable 95% of the time, then your answer is probably still "no", but feel free to comment with more details.)

View Poll

>Ronald D. Moore: But yeah, you can say strip it down to these dark premises and wonder if audiences are going to follow you there. That's a legitimate question - a question the Network asked us over and over again the first season. They were very concerned about how dark the show was. They literally thought that no one would watch the series after the first episode, 33. There was a point where they didn't want us to air 33 as the first episode.

>They were, like, so scared of it. That was a whole big fight, and they eventually backed down, but there was a brief period where they talked about not airing them in order.

>They did one of the infamous controlled tests of the Miniseries just before the Mini went on the air — like four weeks before we aired or something, one of those marketing testing focus group things. They watched the series. It was one of the worst rated ever.

>The company that did it sent back this cover page report that just said, "Nobody likes any of these characters; we see no reason this should ever become a series; there's no identification with any of it; it's too dark, it's too scary."

>And the Network- all the blood drained from their face when they heard that, because it was too late. Fortunately, it was too late. The show was done, locked, "in the can". I think we edited back- we cut out a couple more shots of gore here and there to throw them a bone, but it was way too late in the process to make any serious adjustments. It went to air with this sense of fatalism on the part of the Network that- "Well, we're boned here: they're going to hate it, it's too dark."

>Then they were shocked when the numbers were so good. It really shocked them. It made them reevaluate.

---

It's chilling how close BSG might have come to being mutilated into a failure by SciFi (SyFy) - just like Firefly was by Fox.

And now I want to see the original cut of the Miniseries!

Source:

• Wired: Read an Extended Version of Wired's Interview With Ron Moore (May 18, 2008) (archive.today) (web.archive.org)

I have set up a site-to-site Wireguard VPN between an HQ site and three branches.
Up until this point I only had simple rules for the NAT and Firewall:

• Masquerade all outgoing WAN
• Allow UDP on the Wireguard port
• Drop all Input WAN, not Established

My VPNs have been working great for a couple of weeks.

On Saturday, I decided to follow the MikroTik "Building Advanced Firewall" User Guide.

Everything continued to work fine until yesterday / this morning.

• One branch still maintains the Wireguard VPN.
• One branch's Last Handshake was 16 hours ago.
• One branch's Last Handshake was 4 hours ago.

Absolutely nothing on the configuration side of the VPNs has changed: only the Firewall and NAT rules as dictated in the guide above.

• I tried Disabling-and-Enabling the broken peers on the "server".
• I tried Disabling-and-Enabling the Wireguard "server".
• I tried Disabling-and-Enabling the Wireguard interface on the "server".

None of these fixed the problem.

I then Disabled all the entries I had Added on Saturday to Filter Rules and Raw.
The two broken Wireguard peers almost immediately started working.

• Which of the rules likely broke my Wireguard connections and why?
• How can I fix my rules to follow MikroTik's guide, and still work with Wireguard?

This is just in case anyone missed my post from ~7 days ago.

The poll for "The worst BSG Season Finale?" closes in just four hours. I normally post a warning about 24 hours before closing time, but I missed the mark this time.

So, vote your preference there please, if you haven't already.
(Ignore this if you have already participated.)

So far 47 people have voted, and the results currently are:

Preference	Support
S01E12-E13 Kobol's Last Gleaming, Parts 1 & 2	12.8%
S02E19-E20 Lay Down Your Burdens, Parts 1 & 2	23.4%
S03E19-E20 Crossroads, Parts 1 & 2	23.4%
S04E19-E21 Daybreak, Parts 1, 2, & 3	40.4%

Don't post any comments here.
This is just a reminder.

Does anyone else have this problem? My users have been complaining about it for the past month. I'm guessing it has something to do with a recent update in Teams because it wasn't a problem before. I just want to confirm that it's a wider issue, and maybe check if someone has found a solution.

Description of Problem

1. Navigate to a sub-folder in a Team. Any directory tree with multiple sub-folders should suffice, e.g. Directory → Sub-Directory → Sub-Directory.
2. Open a file within that sub-folder. It's important that the file open within Teams (e.g. an Excel file or a picture). If it opens in an external app (e.g. Excel or a photo app), then the behavior won't be observed.
3. Close the file in Teams. Instead of being dumped back into the directory where I was - e.g. Directory → Sub-Directory → Sub-Directory - I get dumped back into Directory and I have to navigate back to the directory where I was working. This is especially annoying if I am working within a deep-level directory and opening and closing many files.

I've inherited an already-configured multi-site MikroTik setup. I'm still figuring out what each configuration does (many are outdated or no longer needed).

I'm currently trying to change the existing mix of OVPN and L2TP connections to an all-WireGuard site-to-site network.

The basic conceptual setup, at least initially is:

• HQ: Site 0

• Branch A

• Branch B

• Branch C

The HQ has a WireGuard instance running with 3 peers set up for each branch. The branches each have one WireGuard instance and 1 peer (which is HQ). In other words, HQ is the hub and the branches are the spokes (for now).

I already have WireGuard successfully set up and working (Public Keys, Shared Key, and Allowed IPs are all correct).

I have also set up static routes for the appropriate subnets at each site.

This is more or less the config:

HQ MikroTik router:

• LAN IP: 172.16.1.0/24

• WireGuard IP: 10.1.1.1/24

Branch A MikroTik router:

• LAN IP: 172.16.2.0/24

• WireGuard IP: 10.1.1.2/24

Branch B MikroTik router:

• LAN IP: 172.16.3.0/24

• WireGuard IP: 10.1.1.3/24

Branch C MikroTik router:

• LAN IP: 172.16.4.0/24

• WireGuard IP: 10.1.1.4/24

I ran into an issue with one site (let's say Branch B) where the HQ MikroTik router could ping the Branch B MikroTik router and Branch B LAN hosts, but hosts on the HQ LAN couldn't ping the Branch B MikroTik router or Branch B LAN hosts.

I eventually determined that turning on NAT for all interfaces on the HQ router allowed me to ping the Branch B router and LAN hosts, which led me to discover that the Branch B router also had NAT on for all interfaces. After changing the masquerade rule to only apply to the WAN interface list, I was able to ping both sides of the WireGuard connection with no problem.

Now I am experiencing the same issue, but with Branch A. Except this time I have confirmed that there is only one masquerade action on both sides of the connection, and that it only applies to the WAN interfaces.

Note that everything is working perfectly fine (without NAT) for the Branch B and C connections, all of which have the same WireGuard and routing setup that I configured. Also note that WireGuard is working fine at all sites: the HQ router can ping all.the branch routers and vice versa. So, I know the problem has something to do with the previously existing configuration, and is somehow related to NAT, but is somehow not related to a setting in the NAT tab. Also, since this problem only affects one branch, I assume the issue is with the Branch B config.

My question is:

What other settings might cause me to need NAT active on the WireGuard interface at HQ for me to be able to ping the router and LAN hosts at Branch A?

I know many of you are going to ask for my configs, but I don't have access to them right now (it's still the weekend), and I'm just looking for some ideas of what other settings might cause this kind of behavior.

The final results are in from my previous poll asking you to choose "the third-best" (or the "second-worst") of the four BSG Season Finales. Out of 56 votes cast in the 7-day poll, the Season 4 Finale (and the Series Finale) Daybreak won the contest by a slim margin. Click here for detailed results.

Crossroads already won, barely, the first poll for "best" BSG Season Finale, while the Kobol's Last Gleaming won the second poll for "second-best" BSG Season Final.

I'm now asking you to pick the fourth-best, or the "worst", Finale.

• If you already participated in the first, second, or third poll, now's the time to vote for #4.
• If you missed the first, second, or third poll, please don't vote for your favorite, or second-favorite, or third-favorite Finale here: think about which Finales are your #1 and #2 and #3, discard those options, and choose the fourth-best Finale!

I would've done one poll with all 16 possible options, with the four Season Finales ranked in all possible orders, but Reddit polls don't allow more than six options, so had to do this series of four polls to try and figure out roughly how the community ranks the four Finales.

After voting, I'd love to see details / discussion on why you think your choice is the worst Season Finale, compared to the other three.

View Poll

This is just in case anyone missed my post from ~6 days ago.

The poll for "The third-best BSG Season Finale?" closes in a day and a half.

So, vote your preference there please, if you haven't already.
(Ignore this if you have already participated.)

So far 53 people have voted, and the results currently are:

Preference	Support
S01E12-E13 Kobol's Last Gleaming, Parts 1 & 2	22.6%
S02E19-E20 Lay Down Your Burdens, Parts 1 & 2	20.8%
S03E19-E20 Crossroads, Parts 1 & 2	26.4%
S04E19-E21 Daybreak, Parts 1, 2, & 3	30.2%

Don't post any comments here.
This is just a reminder.

The final results are in from my previous poll asking you to choose "the second-best" (or your second-favorite) of the four BSG Season Finales. Out of 216 votes cast in the 7-day poll, the Season 1 Finale Kobol's Last Gleaming won the contest by a healthy margin. Click here for detailed results.

Crossroads already won, barely, the first poll for "best" BSG Season Finale.

I'm now asking you to pick your third-favorite, or the "second-worst", Finale.

• If you already participated in the first or second poll, now's the time to vote for #3.

• If you missed the first or second poll, please don't vote for your favorite or second-favorite Finale here: think about which Finales are your #1 and #2, discard those options, and choose the third-best Finale!

I would've done one poll with all 16 possible options, with the four Season Finales ranked in all possible orders, but Reddit polls don't allow more than six options, so I will be continuing this series to try and figure out roughly how the community ranks the four Finales.

I'll do one more poll asking for the "worst" Finale as a final follow-up (after this 7-day poll ends).

After voting, I'd love to see details / discussion on why you think your choice is the second-worst Season Finale, compared to the other three.

View Poll

I saw this posted within the last 24 hours by @NatGeoHistory and @NatGeoScience on Instagram:

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZfmUidiD6N/

Many people, and many of you reading this, still hold to outdated pop-culture beliefs based on millennia of civilizations' propaganda, and especially on Colonialist / Industrialist / Capitalist propaganda, that agriculture was a universally superior survival method as compared to the more "primitive" hunter-gatherer (i.e. foraging) strategy that served humans well for 300,000 years, hominids for millions of years, and all animal species for hundreds of millions of years.

You've probably learned this myth from teachers in primary and secondary education (i.e. elementary and high schools), who were themselves misled by this pervasive false narrative. It has been reinforced over the years by similar opinions from friends and family, and by casual references in all forms of popular entertainment.

Humans have only been practicing agriculture widely for about 10,000 years, and it's not because prehistoric humans were stupid, or because they hadn't "figured out" that you intentionally and systematically could grow plants for food. It's because it was a strictly worse survival strategy by almost every metric, except for rapid population growth, and in many ways it still is. We are still dealing with many of the disastrous ill effects of the move from foraging to sedentary, agricultural-based civilization.

If you're wondering how this is related to BSG, it's in reference to this much longer post about many of the common criticisms of the BSG Finale, many of which are founded on myths and misunderstandings of prehistoric human history.

Ten months ago, I linked to a paper with the following link:

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2578983X.2021.191137

...which I believe should also work as:

• https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2021.191137

However, neither work currently, and even googling "10.1080/2578983X.2021.191137" only returns the one Reddit comment where I used the link. I also checked web.archive.org and archive.ph for any records of its existence, but I couldn't find any working snapshots.

• How and why would a DOI disappear so thoroughly from the Internet? Was it a retracted paper?

• I assume from the locator code it was from 2021?

• Is there any way to figure out what the original title and author of the paper was?